Protection against the consequences of a
Catastrophe, the Personal Safety Pod

Life is our most
precious endowment.

1. Protection
against the consequences of a Catastrophe

As a consequence of earthquakes and
other catastrophes experienced all over the world, many friends,
colleagues and loved ones have been lost.

But SOME managed to SURVIVE. Why?

Research into these survivor situations
has provided insight into the conditions which enabled them to prevail;
in some cases against unbelievable odds. They simply survived because
they happened to make their way into safety zones accidentally. They
were actually unaware either of the hazard they faced, or of the
consequences of their decision to move in the direction and to the
location they found themselves. They were lucky.

If these persons could be certain of,
and directed to a Safe Haven, then there would be a much higher
probability of significant numbers of survivors.

By merely securing themselves inside
the shelter, in protected space, persons in danger have merely to
activate the identifying beacon, and await the end of the dangerous
event or in the worst case, the rescue teams. Strong though compact, the
engineering characteristics of these havens enable them to withstand
upwards of 100 to 120 tons of downward pressure, roughly the equivalent
of ten floors of structure.

2. Technology Recognized
Internationally

The Personal Safety Pod technology
has received:

- the Gold Medal with special jury
congratulations at the International Invention Contest Geneva 2005 ;
- the EMERCOM Medal and special prize granted by the Russian
Federation Ministry of Emergency Situations (FEMA equivalent) awarded
at Geneva ;
- the Gold Medal awarded at the International Invention Contest of
Bucharest INVENTIKA 2005 and also the Diploma of Excellence ;
- the Gold Medal with congratulations at the International Invention
Contest Bruxelles, EUREKA 2005 ;
- the EMERCOM Special Prize - Bruxelles .

EMERCOM

GENEVA 2005

EUREKA 2005

COMMANDER CROSS

INVENTIKA
2005

3.
Product Description The Personal Safety Pod was conceived to maintain
its integrity and to sustain human life as a result of a catastrophe
and to ensure survival of the occupants until the danger passes or, in
the case of the building collapse, until recovery teams successfully
recover them.

The product was initially conceived for use in older
buildings, often in need of retrofitting, as an efficient method of
protecting the inhabitants. Though by no means a solution to the need
for building improvement, it nevertheless provides a safe haven for the
inhabitants until such time as the often expensive and long-term work
is completed.

In newer buildings, the occupants find themselves
protected from small shards and other breakable materials, against
larger movable objects inside the room which may fall during events of
catastrophe such as earthquakes, and finally against the downward crush
of building collapse, perhaps the product's most compelling feature.
Further, the Personal Safety Pod provides an oasis for sustaining
breathing, oddest temperature control and visibility in problem areas.

Key Advantages of the
Personal Safety Pod include:

- Protects the occupant
from harm from glass shards and small objects hurled around the room,
and larger objects which fall an earthquake, catastrophe or the
outright collapse of a building.
- Communicates location, minimizing exposure to the occupants.
- Properly maintained and provisioned, the interior sustains life for
periods of thirty days or more.
- Exterior can maintain pod integrity for four days, under direct
pressure.
- Enables communication with rescue teams and family.
- Appropriate for old or new buildings,
- Ready to use immediately upon installation.
- Fits into many creative spaces, and can be moved and reinstalled to
suit.
- Manageable by two persons.

Containment
areas might include these easily accessible areas
of the home.

a. Software test
b. Laboratory test at the Bureau of Bucharest Technical Construction
University
c. In situ, in a 36 m building which was demolished by explosion

a. The software test

Once the pod dimensions
were determined, software was used to find the optimum structure shape,
to provide resulting maximum resistance for a reasonable weight (easily
handled). This took into account the importance of our calculating
hypotheses as we chose pressure of high severity, for every structural
type and several stress conditions. The goal was to reach a minimum of
250 kN (25 tons) for the compression stress.

We performed 2,000
simulations over a period of two (2) years, during which only a few
dozen configurations were selected. Ultimately there remained only
six(6) and finally just one configuration which demonstrated optimum
performance, and that greatly surpassed our intended objective.

b. The Bucharest Technical
University Construction Laboratory

Once the optimum resistance
structure was identified, it was tested in the laboratories of the
Bucharest Technical Construction University, which produced a report of
the results. (Ref. Page 8).

We realized one single
trial, in the most severe configuration: the force was applied in a
single point on a very reduced surface (a disc of 12” diameter). The
support covered only about 66% of the shelter base area and the corners
had no support, so the risings were without support so they weren’t
helpful for supporting the compression stress.

In such a situation the
laboratory confirmed the structure resistance, without major
deformations, of 670 kN (67 tones) much more over the value of our
target
(250 kN - 25 tones).

Currently the force is
applied on a much bigger area and the support (the floor) covers 100%
of the shelter’s base area, so all corners will work in compression,
which will rise the resistance of the shelter to a 1 000 - 1 200 kN
(100 to 120 tones). This is equivalent of the weight of a concrete
compact tower with a 1 sq. m base and 48 m high or 320 block floors of
15 cm thickness.

The force application was done on
a very small surface, thus making the attempt to be very severe/stern.

The attempt stand offers as
support/relliance o surface smaller than the one of the structure
base/fundation. None of the beams/poles was supported, thus making the
attempt to become extremely severe

Before the demolition

1 second after the explosion

5 seconds after explosion

c.
Attempts in situ

The attempt was made even
this time in much more severe conditions than in the case of an
earthquake provoked by explosion demolition. The forces that appear in
the case of an explosion are much bigger than in the case of an
earthquake, so the tested modulus was submitted to extreme attempts,
much more severe than in the case of an seism. Also, the demolition
through explosion is done in a manner much more violent than the
demolition caused by an earthquake.

The 2 metallic structures
were placed in a 36 m high building : one of them at the + 6.00
cote and the other at + 30.00, which corresponds to the emplacement at
the 2 nd and the 10th level, in a 12 levels block . Both of the
structures were retrieved intact after the release under the rubbles,
so the persons protected by the Individual Protection Module would have
survived inner in the moment of the building demolition but also after
this, till the arrival of the descarceration teams.